>I didn't intend to start a doom/gloom thread. Gary Schloss has a great
>point - there are lots of lenses available new for the OM system. And
>the 3T and 4T and 2000 are, to the best of anyones' knowledge, still
>being mfd'd. Course new flashes, winders etc are another story. It's
>just dead in the sense of very little, if any, R&D yen is being spent on
>it.
Since I'm up to my eyeballs in Wonderbrick research, I must say that the OM
system still has some MAJOR advantages over either Canon or Nikon--even
with the flagship models. For example, the mirror damping is far superior
in the OM system, the mirror-box metering (vs penteprism metering) makes
the OM system extremely advantageous for macro work. The viewfinder
display, although it doesn't show lens opening, is by far the most
comfortable of any currently produced displays, (however the new EOS-3 may
challenge that with dual scales showing ambient vs flash lighting).
The RGB 3D matrix metering of the F5 has pushed metering technology into a
new realm that is simply amazing. It's hard to fool this meter. It can be
done, but not easily. This meter/camera has a very good sense of what is
going on and rarily lets you down--but does make for lazy photography,
since you don't have to "gray matter" the image as much.
The autofocus technology that Canon has been developing is downright
incredible. Fast? That's an understatement. How about OPTIONS???? How
many flavors of 400mm do you want--zoomed, primed, stabilized, bazookad,
compact, extended, multiplied...
The flagship wonderbricks are just that--bricks. They are built like the
perverbial brick outhouse--very usable, but somewhat overkill in some
areas. However, for the life of me I can't imagine what features I'd like
to have Nikon/Canon remove. Anybody who thinks that today's wonderbricks
are whimpy plasticy feeling disposables hasn't held one of the flagships.
Granted, a Rebel-X is pretty flimsy, but the EOS-1n sure ain't. But you
would probably pack the Rebel-X in your knapsack when you are on a light
hike as it weighs less than a butterfly. (we have big ones around here-<g> )
As far as lens selection is concerned: Olympus lenses hold favor in macro
work. The macro lenses are among the finest ever produced by any company
at any time! I am personally not impressed with Canon's offerings in Macro
and Nikon's is pretty hit-and-miss. Zuiko Zoom lenses have come a long
ways and there are a few models that rank pretty high, but technology keeps
marching along quite fast. Telephoto primes is where the Zuikos are
DEAD!!!! As good as the 300/4.5 is (and it is excellent), it isn't
competitive without IF (internal focusing). Compare your helical
super-tele to an IF super-tele and you won't ever go back, and I'm not even
talking auto-focus. Much of the Zuiko lineup is competitively priced with
the latest Canon/Nikon lenses, but the Zuikos are not of current design,
and many probably are years and years old.
Flash technology? Except for macro work (again, Olympus holds the lead),
flash technology and OTF has bypassed the Olympus. The EOS-3 and F5 and
F100 hold the prize for terrific flash technology and control.
An interesting note: I've been using my IS-3 as my "benchmark" camera for
comparing wonderbricks. The flash control in the IS-3 (with G40) is
superior in many, many ways to the wonderbricks. Even though the IS-3
doesn't allow you to vary the fill-ratios, it nails the flash/ambient
ratios almost everytime. I'm concerned that where the IS-3 fails is where
the wonderbricks also fails. You cannot determine flash power solely by
distance, but must preflash in someway to determine reflectance or use OTF
flash control on your active focus spot (which Canon and Nikon both do to
varying degrees, with major limitations).
As I've said before, if Olympus put the electronics of the IS-3 in an OM
body and gave it AFcapability it would be a winner with me. (No AF would
make it the equivelent of the T-90).
Is the OM system dead? Hardly, but to most professional photographers it
isn't an option anymore. Professional photography is so competitive today
that failure to stay current with technology does put you behind in ability
to adapt new styles as they develop. Sporting photography, for example,
has gotten so radical that it is nearly impossible to do a fraction of the
stuff today without AF, fill-flash (high sync speeds!!!) and gonzo
motordrives. I can still do many of the pictures with the OM system, but
the difference is that I get a single shot that is pretty good compared to
a sequence of great shots. Is that important? Compare a freebie photo
posted at the local club vs a magazine cover shot that brings in $1500 and
a half dozen similars bringing in additional money. If photography is what
pays the rent, you had better think that it is important.
Much of my style of photography is pretty old (mid-80's look) and as hard
as I've tried to adapt the new styles, I come up short because of the
cameras. This is not a copout, but the facts. If I am to succeed as a
professional photographer I must produce what the market wants--and that
ain't the mid-80's look. How much is the photographer and how much is the
technology? Go to the art shows, look at Wired magazine, etc., that will
show you the current "styles." Now try to produce those styles with an
OM-1. Any questions?
Ken
Kenneth E. Norton
Image66 Photography
image66@xxxxxxx
(217) 224-5004
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|